meesr

Well, we too looked very closely at the new RDX, vs the 2.0T Q5.

I'm actually a hardcore VW guy (1984 Jetta GLI, drove for 16 years- 2002 Passat, 1.8T stick shift, current). This SUV purchase was to be for my wife.

Actually, I was pushing for the Acura, and we waited for this car to arrive before we made our decision. I love the dash in the RDX, the nav screen is large, etc. We test drove it. My wife loved it. So in my mind, I'm thinking, my first Japanese car will be in my garage. And I was fine with it.

Then, I told her, lets test drive the Q5, the Lexus RX, and the BMW X3.

The Q5's driving dynamics sold her. I was actually laughing, because I'm the car guy, obsess about cars, read about cars. And the wife picks the car with the best driving dynamics.

Where I agreed with her was this: The RDX, while nice, just feels like a gussied up CRV. Which isn't a bad thing, because the CRV is a great car.

But the Q5, well, everything in it just felt solid. A little more hefty. Drove like a A4 on stilts.

In Los Angeles, the dealers are not really budging at all on price. You may get lucky to get $1000 of a new Q5. There are maybe 2 on each lot, usually just for test drives. An any coming on delivery were orders for customers who have been waiting for 3 months.

This is for a 4 year old design, mind you. They just announced the 2013 facelift, and the Q5 looks even better.

My old boss once told me: "If you are getting a new car, and the model you really want is 10% more, then get that one. Because if you don't, you will regret it." The 10% got us a Q5.

SSFTSX

As i said RDX has taller ground clearance. so it is expected. but it will definitely beat Q5 in real world fuel economy/reliability.
Q5 is base on A4 platform. so more heavier platform. RDX is more Civic based platform. A4 platform is comparable to Acura TL in wheel base. so correct comparision of Q5 is MDX. there is good discounts on MDX tech package and price is more comparable to Q5 premium Plus.
If your buying old design buy MDX instead of Q5. in C&D tests fuel economy of MDX is closer to Q5 2.0T.


http://www.acuraofserramonte.com/new...6dee929bc0.htm

MMike1981

thats all well and good, but it was a performance comparison we were making, and MPGs are basically identical as well

...anndd now that you said the Q5 compares to the MDX or vice versa, that statement has discredited everything else you have said. wow. Maybe you meant the Q7 , ill give you the benefit of the doubt.

MMike1981

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...omparison-test

Quick Results:
+ Fifth: 2010 Lexus GX460
+ Fourth: 2011 Land Rover LR4 HSE
+ Third: 2011 Acura MDX
+ Second: 2011 BMW X5 xDrive35i
+ First: 2011 Audi Q7 3.0 S-line

SSFTSX

Dont look at size but the platform beneath it. MPG is not comparable in real world driving of Q5 and RDX.

Q5 compares to MDX in price when you consider the discounts on MDX. ur comparing MDX advance package with 19inch rim. It is the tech package MDX with 18inch rim that is comparable to Q5.

Q7 is bigger than MDX in size. Q7 compares to MB GL class.

Q5 is clearly slower than MDX.



http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...audi-q5-review
Specifications

VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 5-door wagon

PRICE AS TESTED: $38,000 (base price: $36,075)

ENGINE TYPE: turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injection

Displacement: 121 cu in, 1984 cc
Power (SAE net): 211 bhp @ 4300 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 258 lb-ft @ 1500 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 8-speed automatic with manumatic shifting

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 110.5 in Length: 182.2 in
Width: 74.0 in Height: 65.1 in
Curb weight: 4095 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 7.0 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 20.0 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 35.5 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 7.7 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.5 sec @ 90 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 128 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 167 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.85 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 20/27 mpg
C/D observed: 19 mpg

Opus360

Only let the wife test drive what you want her to buy.

I am keeping my wife away from Lexus RX and any other ones I don't like.

MMike1981

huh? all irrelevant. some coupes cost the same as trucks, are we going to compare those too because the price is the same? price doesnt mean it warrants a comparison

SDCB

If you take a look at the specs on the updated 2013 Audi Q5, that just came out and it looks like now the advantage spread for the Q5 is even greater than before. They have improved the HP and mileage on the 2.0T, along with a few additional features. Just fyi.

wrestrepo

Turbo 2.0, supercharged 3.0, and hybrid option for the new Q5.

Rocketsfan

Sweet. Maybe dealers will discount the RDX more. lol.

Sly Raskal

iTrader: (1)

Moved thread to the new 2nd gen RDX forum.

MMike1981

Q5 even stronger.

weather

I had a chance to test drive both back to back earlier this week and I am convinced that for me, I made the right decision. I will not deny that the Q5 felt more solidly planted on the road but felt the interior not as roomy. I didn't like the interior cockpit of the Q5 compared to the RDX but I love Acura interiors and for me, I felt right at home when I test drove the RDX. The difference in price (financing and accessories in the deal) was significant enough for me to justify getting the RDX. Besides, my TL is really my REAL vehicle while the RDX is my daily/beater driver...the one that takes the punishment of driving in the rain

SDCB

I'm sure you will be very pleased with it. It wasn't like one was really good and the other bad, it was more a matter of personal preferences. I think they are both very good cars and you can't go wrong either way.

superblast

Oh, I wasn't suggesting you were biased one way or the other... just that there's no such thing as unbiased.

I do need to drive a Q5 since everyone seems so enamored of them. They are pretty sharp looking though.

I don't really understand all the comparisons between the CR-V and the RDX. I test drove a brand new, decked out one about a year and a half ago before buying a 2007 RDX. To me, they were completely different cars, from the interior to the handling. The exterior is no contest of course. I feel like I ended up with a far superior car for $10k less and while not new, was one of the nicest condition used cars I've seen. But hey, everyone likes different things.

SSFTSX

MDX is 191.5 inch. Q7 is 200inch. They are cleary not in same class.

The point i am making is 2012 MDX is better buy than 2012 Q5 when both have similar pricing with tech package and 18inch wheels. both are slight higher priced than 2013 RDX .

Now if 2013 MDX comes out with Acura DI engine & new shape than i will take it over 2013 Q5 as by than Q5 design will be old. even though it has 3.0T.

weather

Yes, you do need to drive a Q5. I did and it is indeed a very fine ride and would never take away from how Audi/VW handle. That being said, there was nothing offensive with the RDX either although certainly not as razor sharp as the Q5. Now for ME, I just preferred the RDX interior over the Q5 despite what everyone says about the ergonomic interiors of the Audi. To be fair, I have owned 3 Acura and this will be my fourth (supplementing my TL) so for me, I am very comfortable and used to the Acura interior. Stepping into the RDX made feel right at home and I had the warm fuzzies. For the price and goodies I was able to get from my dealership made it a no brainer as to why I would get the RDX over the Q5 but I will say this, I would not EVER knock the Q5. They are both AMAZING vehicles and they will serve their owners with great driving pleasure. We are not comparing a Pinto vs a Lexus here

With your CR-V and RDX comparison comment, I am with you! I am not sure why people always say that an RDX is just a more expensive CR-V. Using the same platform does not mean its the same vehicle. Most car companies do this and I find it ridiculous. In fact, what will be next...? Have you seen the interior of a VW Golf and a Passat? OMG, they have a same interior cluster....does that mean that a Passat is just a more expensive Gulf? Of course not! (It is more expensive but its still not a Golf). For me, when people quote what platform the vehicle shares and then used that comment to say that is the same vehicle makes me lose credibility in their arguments

wrestrepo

You may be the only person that believes that the MDX doesn't compete with the Q7. What you need to look at is "3 row, 7 passenger luxury SUV" and they both fit the bill.
As a matter of fact, the MDX has been king in the three row market all this time because, aside form the Volvo XC90, and now the new Infiniti JX, the only other luxury ones were the Germans (Benz and Audi), which are waaaay above the MDX in price.
Mind you, this statement doesn't include real body on frame SUVs like Land Cruiser, Lexus, Tahoe, Escalade, etc.
Price is only one of the considering factors, it doesn't determine the category that a vehicle is in.

bh9712

Weather - thank you - I thought I was the only one who preferred the RDX. I hear an awful lot of "Q5 is better, but costs more". For me, it wasn't about the extra $4k. I prefer the RDX straight up. The Q5 had crisper handling, but I don't carve canyons anymore. I like not feeling every tar strip I drive over. And the Q5 has great torque, but I prefer the linear acceleration of the RDX - and my dog does too - she doesn't fall over when I pull away from a stoplight. I prefer the exterior lines on the RDX over the rounded Q5. LED running lights and tail lights are nice, but I never see them when I'm driving. And I actually don't like the wood inside. When I drove the X3, I was nearly blinded by the sun reflecting off the wood. And I love that I will never go out to my car and hope that it starts.

"Better" is a subjective term. In just about every aspect, the RDX is "better" for me. I wish it had blind spot monitoring and adaptive cruise control, but I've done okay without those things for the last 24 years of driving and will be okay without them now. But I know that for many, the Q5 or X3 will be "better" for them. That doesn't make their choice wrong - just not right for me.

2013 RDX AWD Tech

weather

WOW...It is refreshing to see someone else who articulates his point clearly and can look at things objectively. I, like you, base my decision on what works best for me rather than what everyone else thinks. I also agree that while I wish Acura would have put some extra goodies available for the consumer, most of us would be here complaining on how the price was too high I think the RDX is a great vehicle and offers the things that really matters to me and as much as some of the other tech goodies would have been great, they are not MUST have. I will say this, one thing I do dislike about the RDX is the fact that the passenger seat does not have a height adjuster - That to me is almost beyond logic but oh well!

Now if I had one advanced technology feature I wish Acura would integrate in their vehicle would be the following:

1. An infrared camera for night driving. I live in an area where wild life is all over the road and you would be amazed how many people get killed at night hitting a moose. That would be a great life saving feature.

2. A device that zaps non bluetooth cell phone within a 2 km radius from me! I swear that irresponsible drivers holding their cellphone while driving (or texting) is my biggest GRIPE ever. Even more baffling to me is why they say that texting and driving is more dangerous than drinking and driving, yet the penalty for texting and driving is simply a slap on the wrist. I'd say that anyone caught texting should have their license suspended for a year, insurance through the roof and their car impounded! RANT OVER

SSFTSX

7 seater does not matter. even Infiniti QX is 7 seater. MB GL is 7 seater, LX570 is 7 seater, GX is 7 seater. Even Infiniti JX is longer than MDX.

MDX is closer in size to X5 which can be configured for both 5 seats and 7 Seats. MDX has torque vectoring AWD which Q5 lacks. there is no point in paying more for Q5 when MDX discounted is simiilary priced available.
Choice is either Fuel economy oriented light weight RDX or MDX.

MDX just feels more luxurious.

Opus360

I got to agree here. If it were me only, I would have picked the MDX over Q5 or RDX. As it stands, wife wants a compact size SUV. So, for now, MDX and Q5 are the choices. Waiting for the 2013 Q5s to come in to test drive/look at them before making final decision.

BTW, the 2013 Ford Escape looks really good too on paper and on initial drives by the Consumer Reports. It might be even better than Q5 or RDX for a lot less money. I built one out at the Ford website. Everything I wanted for $35k, that is $5k to $10k less than the RDX and Q5, respectively.

Fuel economy is excellent on the Escape.

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars...l-economy.html

Michael Fetty

i have a q5 and we just got my wife the new rdx. i have a 2.0T that has the Stasis ECU upgrade which takes it to ~258hp/311 lb/ft Torque. The Q5 is great.

She had an 07 RDX before and our main reason for getting out was Fuel MPG was not that good.

The new RDX is great but IMO it's no Q5.

The Q5 has a superior quality as far as build and interior.

One key thing for me is, in the Q5 I can manually control the Navigation Destination or do it by Voice, RDX only by voice.

RDX does have maybe an 1" more or Cargo. Both ride incredibly smooth and are fun.

Q5 has Dual 12 Way Power Seats and Panoramic Sunroof.

I like driving the RDX once a week but my wife loves it.

weather

Micheal Fetty...Your analysis is spot on in my eyes! You gave it a very objective description even about teh built quality. I do wish the RDX had a dual power seat (as far as height adjustments).

The only problem for me is when I priced a Q5 in Canada with the panoramic roof and upgraded stereo, it gave a 52k sticker price. Mind you, that is with the quatro system which I am comparing with my RDX. That means that there is almost a 10k difference in canada between the RDX and the Q5. I am fully aware that the Q5 offers alot more luxury items compared to the RDX and that is built in to the price difference but those are things I can live without.

For me, Audi would not give a 0.25% finance rate, all the accessories I got, plus a great trade in value on my Rav4. Given that both are great vehicles, I am happy to settle for an RDX if one can call this settling. I love the styling, interior and overall reliability of Acura.

Yumcha

Nope...the FX is a crossover and thus, a "CUV". The FX35 is pretty much in the same pricepoint. FX50, not so much...



And again, I'll say this: the sentiment that Japanese cars last longer is an old stereotype. It's not the case anymore...There are numerous threads about that in Automotive News and Car Talk sub-forums.

weather

Perception is everything though...It takes years to shake off a bad repution. Sort of like what Hyundai is trying to get over.

Yumcha

But, it's not reality. So, the Japanese vs. German reliability discussion in here needs some tempering.

I mean, if you guys were talking about the reliability of Land Rovers, okay...different story.

weather

Good point...I will try and tone down my Japanese bias

Yumcha

Hey, it's not like I'm hating cars from the Land of the Rising Sun. I own one.

Just saying that I don't buy the Japanese-more-reliable argument anymore...and I've owned 2 Japanese cars (CL and Mazda3) that have had their shares of issues.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

That's fine with me. I'm just comparing apple to apple, orange to orange here. For some people, like yourself, it might make sense to buy the base model of a car for a few thousand dollars more (Q5 3.2 base), rather than buying the top of the line of another vehicle (RDX tech AWD). However, different strokes for different folks. Some people, like weather and bh9712, have different views. I don't think they are "illogical" people, right? In the automotive world, this happens all the time. For the price of a Civic EX-L, you can pretty much get an Accord. But some people prefer a fully equipped Civic rather than the roomier Accord.

I misunderstood your comparison between powerplants, my bad. I found the smoothness of the turbocharged K23 to be decent, but yes, the mpg is mediocre at best. However, at least its real world mpg is aligned with the EPA ratings.

That's pretty much what I said - the Q5 2.0 is a better car with better handling and interior at a higher price point. It has features that the RDX does not have. It can also be better equipped. On the other hand, the RDX offers a V6 powerplant that pretty much matches the EPA ratings of the Q5 2.0T. It also has features that the Q5 2.0T base does not have, unless you add them. For some people, they would rather to have a proper V6 powerplant as well as navi. On the other hand, some people prefer a better interior and more features. B&O stereo system is good, but Acura's ELS is in the same league too. In fact, a few years ago, Edmunds did a test and they ranked the ELS system as the best OEM stereo system. I wouldn't call that as being outclassed. I was mainly talking about straight line performance, sorry for not being clear enough. Honda and Acura love to use mediocre OEM tires and hence their handling numbers are generally not good. The RDX again has some Michelin MXM4 which aren't really that good. It puzzles me why Honda continues using those tires.

It's true, the RDX has poor steering. This new one is more of a Lexus RX competitor. But that doesn't automatically make the RDX a bad car.....considerating it is quite a bit cheaper than the RX.

SDCB

There was an article in the Wall Street Journal today about "diminished luxury". It talked about Acura and referred to it joining Buick and others in offering "near luxury" cars at their lower end.

There is nothing wrong with that at all, but to me it is the difference between the two cars. They are both very good, but each focuses on buyers with slightly different priorities. The value of one over the other just depends on what your personal preferences are.

MMike1981

all i understand in Acuras new campaign is that smart luxury = less luxury. Maybe id be a fan of that, if the price was less or even the same, or, if Acura gave more in a base model. But Acura is now offering LESS....for....MORE? just doesnt work out, especially when they are treading water occupied by more superior vehicles today, for just a few thousand apart in HIGHER trim, and relatively SIMILAR if not exact base pricing.

Smart = less. Acura has to find the roots in the Legend, RSX, Type-S's, and the great generations of the TSX. Thats what gave Acura its character, edge, reason to own, and basically, made it competitive. I have no idea the crap they are shoveling today besides overpriced and under-lux and under performing Hondas. Which is OK, but needs to be acknowledged.

Whens the last time Acura won a comparo? Anyone? Might be the MDX from a few years ago? Anything else? (im being serious)

wrestrepo

I really don't get your criteria for comparing cars.
I don't know if you read what you are replying to. With the exception of the German's Q7 and GL, all the other 7 Passenger Luxury Vehicle/SUVs are body on frame (everything you mentioned). The JX is a new offering, built to directly compete against the MDX, BECAUSE there are no other 7 passenger luxury SUVs, that are NOT BODY ON FRAME, on the market besides the Volvo XC90 and the Acura.

Price is the only way that you can pair up the MDX and the Q5, and that means nothing, the new LR Evoque is also in the same price category, would you compare that one too?

MMike1981

just to be clear here, im NOT comparing the V6 Q5 to the RDX (thus this base model pricing you keep referring to is not the same comparo im making. I have been, and continue to compare the RDX to the 2.0t-->). More importantly, ACURA does NOT consider the V6 Q5 as its competition. Apples to apples is the 2.0t (regardless of powerplant) because that is where the RDX is most comparable, if it even is at all, whether it be on price, performance or equipment. (with your logic, it would seem to me that the 1st gen RDX would then only be comparable to other 4 cyl CUVs?) So im not sure why you are hung up on matching the powerplants, especially when the 2.0t, just like the 1st gen RDX, compares with V6 powerplants due to their pretty remarkable performance #'s. As it is, Audi's V6's are becoming less common, as Audi turbo's have essentially replicated V6 performance within their lineups and have the greatest take-rate.

So no, your first few sentences actually do not apply to me at all, because im comparing the 2.0t premium OR the premium plus trim to an RDX AWD/Tech. in my experienced opinion having owned both, once you move to the 2.0t premium plus, the distance between that and the RDX is much more vast. You might save a few thousand if you opt for the tech RDX versus navigation Audi, but even the Audi nav is much better.

For the stereo, the 2nd gen ELS is WAYYYYY better than the 1st gen ELS. That said, even with them side to side, the B&O has spectacular clarity and quality. ELS speakers pop and the sound & sub insulation sucks, there is too much rattling. I have read all the edmunds test and actually have dug up a few audio tests on the ELS, and for this pair of ears, which work in a music studio part time, the ELS is a great stereo, but for me it doesnt raise to the B&O. of course other ears may differ

btw - i LOVE the TURBO RDX. My favorite powerplant in years, especially with the SHAWD, man what Acura COULD have done.

MMike1981

the reliability arguments these days are for the birds. Like Yumcha said, EVERY manufact is cutting corners, ESPECIALLY acura, its written all over their cars, inside and especially out. Their built quality has gone down in comparison to THEIR previous cars, the RDX is a shit can on the outside for me, terrible seam gaps, mudguard cladding literally falling off, bumper clips braking, just things i notice on a daily-driver basis. Ever push on a german panel?

that said - i too, like ive stated over the years here and in this actual thread, have had reliability nightmares with japanese brands, mazda, acura, and nissan (late 90's). I have learned my lessons = BUY WHAT YOU LIKE. cars are a depreciating asset, might as well love what you are in, you are never going to recover the cost.

SSFTSX

All i am saying that in final years MDX provide better value than Q5. Q5 simply lacks the handling technology/luxury of MDX. JX/GL/Q7 are a minivan type SUV. You cannot compare it to MDX/X5. MDX/X5 is separate category.

pickler

MDX interior is so sexy

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

As far as I know, although Smart Luxury is there new campaign, the products for this campaign isn't fully out yet. I'm not sure what you mean by less luxury versus previous Acura models. I mean, the new TL, RDX, etc would own my TL in terms of features, NVH, refinement, etc. The old Acura was all about value-luxury - 2g TL, 3g TL, 1g TSX, 1g MDX, etc. These are all glorified Honda's to be honest. I think Acura is trying to move away from that. It might be beneficial if you take a look at more road tests. The TL SH-AWD 6MT is one of the fastest on a track in its segment, if not the fastest (though one might say it's a biased test as it's hosted by Acura). R&T put that car against the S4 and their lap times are very close.

I also don't know when was the last time Acura won a comparo other than the MDX and RDX winning comparison tests in 2007. In fact, I haven't seen many Acura's involved in any comparo. It would be interesting to see how the RDX does against the others though. I don't expect it to win as most mags care about handling and driving fun. But I do feel the RDX is the "jack of all trades" type of vehicle, which is very different than the 1g RDX that didn't sell well.

Relax man, I'm NOT saying the Q5 is a DIRECT competitor to the RDX for EVERYONE. I'm also NOT insisting that the RDX will ONLY compare to the Q5 3.2, and it should NOT be compared to the Q5 2.0. Otherwise, I wouldn't be comparing the Q5 2.0 with the RDX in the 2nd half of my post, correct?

Again, I repeat, different strokes for different folks. SOME people will compare the Q5 2.0 with the RDX. Some others will compare the Q5 3.2 with the RDX. Some will prefer the RDX, while others will prefer the Q5. All I'm saying is, the RDX isn't as bad as you are making it out to be. Clearly, the 2g RDX direction does not go well with you, as I can see that you prefer something more sporty like the 1g RDX. From a business perspective though (not that car enthusiasts would care for), the new car is probably a more suitable direction. We will see how it will do in terms of sales.

Which gen of ELS does the 1G RDX have? My friend also has a 2007 RDX tech and the system sounds fantastic. I'm no audiophile and I didn't find any noticeable difference between that system and my other friend's Q5 3.2 B&O system.

I have driven the 1g RDX and that engine is fun. I don't mind the turbo lag too much.

I think when people talk about reliability, they look at a pool of data, like consumer reports. They mainly talk about out of 100 cars, how many of those will encounter problems. A more reliable model will have something like 5 cars that have problems out of 100 cars, while a less reliable one will have 10 out of 100. It really doesn't mean much if we only look at a few individuals and judge the reliability based on their experience.

wrestrepo

In final years? I don't know what that means.
Yes, the MDX is a "better value" than the Q5 when comparably equipped, nobody would argue that (I hope), but you wouldn't compare the two side by side either, they are apples and oranges.
You are also very wrong when you say that the Q5 "lacks handling, technology and luxury". Audi offers things that Acura doesn't even have as options.
Who's comparing the MDX to the X5? Did I even say BMW? And what do you mean by "minivan type SUVs"? do you really think that they are less capable than the MDX? also, wrong.
And don't take it as something personal, you are just comparing the MDX to the wrong car.

Opus360

I think final years mean the MDX is about to be refresh.

Well, we are comparing MDX to Q5, not exactly the same category as far as size. The two are very comparable in terms of price. In that sense, the MDX is a better value plus it is more reliable as well.

Both MDX and Q5 handle and rides very well. Both provides very good steering feedback. The MDX is better finished than the RDX. Q5 interior is meticulously finished. Both SUVs certainly offer technology and luxury.

Now, the 2013 Ford Escape offers some very interesting piece of technology such as the "open the hatch by waving your foot" thing. Comparably equipped, Escape is at least $5k below RDX.